Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Storm Drainage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears Nexus study and introduces higher storm drainage impact fees after consultant presentation
Summary
Consultant Adam Marston told the City Council the 2026 Nexus study identifies roughly $47M–$65M in future storm drainage projects across two watersheds and recommends new per‑impervious‑acre fees; council adopted the study and directed staff to include credit/appeal mechanisms before fees take effect 60 days after final action.
The City Council heard a technical presentation Tuesday on the 2026 storm drainage impact fee Nexus study and introduced an ordinance to update the city’s storm drainage impact fees.
Adam Marston of the consultant team summarized an analysis that breaks Costa Mesa into two drainage basins — the Santa Ana River and Newport Bay watersheds — and calculates fees based on impervious acres and land‑use impervious factors. The study applies a system‑plan methodology to allocate future capital improvements identified in the 2024 storm drainage master plan and arrives at per‑acre figures that vary by land use.
Marston said the fees were designed to comply with California law, including AB 1600 and AB 602, and would be effective 60 days after the council’s final action. He told the council the proposed fees would fund an estimated portion of the identified improvements — roughly a quarter to a third of costs in each watershed — and that remaining funding would need to come from grants, assessments, or the general fund.
During the hearing, residents and speakers raised concerns that the fee package would not fully finance the master plan and that it could complicate development review. Consultant Marston and staff responded that the fees are limited by law to funding capital improvements attributable to new development and that the ordinance includes an appeal and credit process for projects that install on‑site mitigation or non‑standard designs.
Council members asked technical questions about how impervious area is measured, why the study used a per‑acre basis for residential projects, and whether developers can get credits for on‑site water capture. Staff said credits and reimbursements are included in the draft ordinance and that individual projects could request an alternative calculation when warranted.
The council voted to adopt the Nexus study and introduce the implementing ordinance, with direction to ensure an accessible appeals process and to review fee performance in future periodic updates under state law. The fees would be implemented after required public noticing and the statutory 60‑day waiting period.
The council’s action now places the fee schedule on track for administrative implementation if the second reading and final adoption follow the required notice and hearing timeline.
